^^^Israel no longer has a conservative run government...

During the oral arguments did anyone bring up the fact that the vaccine doesn't prevent the spread of the virus?
Or did that inconvenient truth get swept under the rug?

The Supreme Court is anything but. They have once again proven their gross incompetency and complete lack of understanding of the very Constitution they were hired as experts on. Or - they are corrupt and completely compromised.

I wish there was a 3rd choice but unfortunately it is one of the two above.

quote:

Originally posted by sigspecops:
During the oral arguments did anyone bring up the fact that the vaccine doesn't prevent the spread of the virus?
Or did that inconvenient truth get swept under the rug?

No, of course not. And the Justices are all triple vaxxed. But... that point should have been obvious, because despite being vaxxed, two of the lawyers participated remote because they tested positive for COVID-19:

The impact of the pandemic was on full display Friday. The hearing was conducted in a building that has been closed to the public for almost two years and two lawyers delivered their arguments remotely after testing positive for COVID-19.

The Ohio attorney general's office confirmed that Flowers was delivering his argument by telephone.

'Ben who is vaccinated and boosted, tested positive for COVID-19 after Christmas. His symptoms were exceptionally mild and he has since fully recovered,' it said in a statement to Reuters.

'The Court required a PCR test yesterday which detected the virus so for that reason he is arguing remotely.'

Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill was also expected to deliver her argument remotely, 'in accordance with COVID protocols,' said her office without offering further information.

You can't reason with crazy people. It just doesn't work.

"The pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions into a fanatic — Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon — these types stand in opposition to the strong, emancipated spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these sick intellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the great masses — fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing poses to listening to reasons...." - Friedrich Nietzsche , The Antichrist

Mom stuffed son in trunk because he had COVID, needed to be quarantined

A Texas mother faces criminal charges after she allegedly stuffed her 13-year-old son in the trunk of her car — because he tested positive for COVID-19 and she didn’t want to get exposed, authorities said.

Sarah Beam, 41, allegedly packed up her son and took him to a drive-thru coronavirus testing center in Houston on Jan. 3, according to local outlet KPRC.

Witnesses reported hearing noises coming from the back of Beam’s vehicle when she pulled up to the tented testing center at Ken Pridgeon Stadium, according to court documents obtained by the outlet.

Bevin Gordon, the health services director at the site, asked Beam to open the trunk — revealing the teenager lying down inside, the charging docs state.

Beam, who has worked as a teacher in the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District since 2011, explained she was trying to keep her son isolated.

“(The mother) stated that she put (her son) inside the trunk to prevent her from getting exposed to possible COVID while driving (him) to the stadium for additional testing,” the filing says.

Gordon told Beam that she and her son would not be tested until the teen was removed from the trunk and seated in the back seat of the car. He then called the police.

Oh look who was rubbing elbows with the dem leaders last night...since she is too ignorant to think for herself I have to assume they were telling her how to rule on the mandate cases. Amazingly she was at the hearing remotely because of "covid" but has no problem dining out in a crowded restaurant....

The people telling you to to fear covid have no fear of covid. There is a reason for that.

Leftist Supreme Court justices are trying to legislate their ignorance
By Andrea Widburg

After reading about Friday's Supreme Court hearing the power of federal agencies to impose far-reaching vaccine mandates, a friend asked me how Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor could be so completely ignorant about COVID. The snarky answer was that the "Wise Latina" was drawing on her inner wisdom, obviating the need for facts. However, given that Justices Breyer and Kagan were just as ill informed, and all three were pushing to define public policy rather than analyze the Constitution, the accurate answer is that leftist Supreme Court justices care nothing about the law. They view themselves as an unelected legislature and are guided by their personal fears.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two mandate cases. The first, National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, challenged the latter's "emergency" mandate requiring all businesses with 100 employees or more to force the employees to vaccinate or take regular cost-prohibitive tests, something affecting over 80 million Americans. The plaintiffs argued (correctly) that OSHA lacks the authority to mandate medicines for employees. Forcing people either to get a jab or test or to lose their job is a far cry from requiring hard hats and machine shut-offs.

The second case, Biden v. Missouri, was one of several lawsuits that Republican attorneys general filed challenging the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' mandate holding that all health care facility workers have to be vaccinated. Failing to do so would forfeit Medicare and Medicaid benefits that are the life's blood for most doctors' offices and medical facilities (which also explains why physicians routinely refuse requests for ivermectin or other alternative COVID treatments). The states contend that a federal agency lacks the authority to condition participation in those programs on complying with mandates.

Ultimately, the arguments in both cases boil down to one pivotal point: does the Constitution give agencies the authority to write laws — such as laws disguised as regulations that force American workers to get experimental, controversial, minimally effective, life-altering treatments? The easy answer is "no," but the Supreme Court's leftists were uninterested in a constitutional analysis of bureaucratic overreach. Instead, they asked questions premised on their ill informed beliefs about COVID and their obvious personal fears.

Kagan began by insisting that "it's an extraordinary use of power taking place in an extraordinary situation," and that "we all know what the best policy is, we know the best way to stop spread is for people to get vaccinated and to stop serious illness is for people to get vaccinated," and that "the second best is to wear masks." (All Supreme Court quotations are from Fox News's live coverage.)

No, Justice Kagan, we don't all know that. That's Congress's job. Additionally, the CDC has admitted that vaccinations do nothing to stop COVID's spread. Indeed, with omicron, they seem to make people more vulnerable:

A study found that 96% of all omicron cases in Germany were among the vaccinated. Similarly, cases of omicron among the vaccinated in Ontario, Canada, are outpacing cases among the unvaccinated by 28%. The same trend is occurring in Denmark, where 8.5% of all cases are among the unvaccinated, and in the United Kingdom, only 25% of omicron hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated.

Also, Democrats are admitting that the cloth masks people have worn for almost two years are useless. Now it's all about N-95 masks (which also don't work because [a] nobody wears them correctly and [b] everybody wears them repeatedly, which just recycles viruses and other nasties around people's noses and mouths). Lloyd Austin, who had three jabs and walks around like Darth Vader...caught COVID.

Most importantly, "policy" is not Kagan's business. Her only responsibility is to determine whether federal agencies can make laws. (And again, no, they can't.)

Breyer was just as ignorant, claiming that "you have hospitalization figures growing by factors by [sic] 10, you have hospitalizations near the record, at the record." Again, untrue. In fact, the current variant is seeing lower hospitalization rates than other variants, which is to be expected as viruses learn to live symbiotically with their human hosts. Indeed, in New York, almost half of all ostensible COVID hospitalizations are not for COVID.

However, in the stupidity sweepstakes, Sotomayor always wins: "We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators."

Not true. As Fauci reluctantly conceded, there's a huge difference between children hospitalized because of COVID versus testing positive for it upon admission for a different health issue. There's a rise in hospitalizations only because omicron is unstoppable and it's peaking now. Even the New York Times concedes that children are not at greater risk. Also, because more people die in the winter for myriad reasons, including the annual flu season, hospitals always fill up around this time. (It doesn't help that hospitals are short-staffed thanks to mandates.)

Breyer is 83, Sotomayor is 67 and has diabetes, and Kagan is a youngish 61. The first two, and probably Kagan as well, consider themselves at high risk from COVID, and, of course, they wallow in ignorance. They've made it plain that, to protect themselves, they're willing to ignore the Constitution; make policy from the bench; and, along the way, destroy America.

Bonus content: The Missouri attorney general, making complete sense:



https://www.americanthinker.co...their_ignorance.html

Heart inflammation risk rises dramatically for young with booster shots

New research suggests heart inflammation may be more common than initially believed, becomes more likely among young with booster shots.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/320052

A rare side-effect of the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may be more common than previously believed, according to a new study conducted in Oregon, with additional research suggesting the risk for the side-effect increases dramatically among males under 40 with each additional dose of the vaccine.

The first study, conducted by doctors in Portland from the Kaiser Permanente healthcare provider network, examined incidents of two kinds of heart inflammation - myocarditis and pericarditis -from the Kaiser Permanente database.

Both the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccines have been linked in a number of cases to heart inflammation, particularly in younger male recipients of the vaccine.

Led by head researcher Katie Sharff, the team found a number of cases which would likely have not been included in Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimate for the prevalence of myocarditis and pericarditis among vaccine recipients.

Beyond the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) coding of reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis immediately after vaccination, the researchers also searched through the digital case database to find text descriptions which indicated one of the two heart inflammation conditions, even if the condition was not coded as such.

In addition, the team found that a number of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were left out of initial estimates when the vaccine recipient who suffered heart inflammation after receiving the jab was taken to an out-of-network medical centers not connected to the Kaiser Permanente chain. The researchers found that in many cases, there was a significant delay in billing Kaiser Permanente for treatment of heart inflammation cases in individuals who had received the vaccine. Due to the delay, however, and the fact that the condition was identified out of network, the cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were not counted in estimates of the total number of cases.

By expanding the scope of cases included in its estimate, the study found the prevalence of heart inflammation to be greater than previous studies, including estimates by the CDC.

While the conditions were exceedingly rare in the general population, the rates recorded by the Portland study were significantly higher than the CDC’s estimate based on the VAERS data.

According to the CDC estimate, the highest-risk groups, males ages 12-15, males ages 16-17, and males ages 18-24, had reporting rates after the second dose of 39.9 per million, 69.1 per million, and 36.8 per million respectively; or the equivalent to 1 case per 25,040 for the 12-15 age cohort, 1 case per 14,471 in the 16-17 group, and 1 case per 27,174 in the 18-24 cohort. Females and males over 30 had significantly lower risk levels.

The Portland study, however, estimates the rates of heart inflammation after mRNA vaccination at 537.1 per million for males 18-24 after the second dose, followed by 377.4 per million for males 12-17. That would be equivalent to a risk factor of 1 out of 1,862 for males 18-24, and 1 out of 2,650 for boys ages 12 to 17.

Among all patients ages 12 to 39, male and female, who received two doses, the estimated risk level is 95.4 per million, or 1 case of heart inflammation per 10,482 vaccinations. Among males of the same age range (12-39) the risk factor was roughly double, with 195.4 cases per million, or one case for every 5,117 vaccinations.

The new study is more in line with reports from Israel, though it still exceeds the estimated rates of heart inflammation found by Israeli researchers.

A review in early December 2021 estimated the risk factor among males 16-19 at 15.07 per 100,000, or one case per 6,636 people, roughly a third of the prevalence estimated by the Portland study.

One limitation of direct comparison between the Portland study, however, and data from Israel is the mixed use of mRNA vaccines from both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech in the Kaiser Permanente sample, while Israel has exclusively relied on the Pfizer vaccine. Some recent research has suggested that the Moderna vaccine, which includes a significantly higher dose of mRNA than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, is more likely to result in myocarditis or pericarditis.

A second study, conducted in the UK, found that while the risk of myocarditis after vaccination was generally mild in comparison to the risk faced by people infected with SARS-CoV-2, people under 40, and particularly males under 40, were significantly more likely to suffer heart inflammation following vaccination.

The study analyzed 42,200,614 cases in the UK, including 10,978,507 individuals who received a third dose of the COVID, and compared rates of incidence of myocarditis in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 to rates of the heart condition among recent vaccine recipients.

Researchers separated the cases by vaccine type, tracking myocarditis cases following jabs of the AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech, and the Moderna vaccines.

Notably, the risk factor for myocarditis among vaccine recipients remained comparable to or lower than the risk factor for COVID patients in the same age/gender cohort, with cases separated into four groups: men over 40, women over 40, males under 40, and females under 40.

Younger vaccine recipients, however were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with myocarditis following the jab than older people; even with the separation point of 40 years of age; without the more narrowly defined age cohorts used in other studies which showed peak vulnerability in the 12-25 age group.

Importantly, the study found that not only were males under 40 at far higher risk for myocarditis from any of the vaccines than from COVID infection, multiple doses of all the vaccines appears to cause a cumulative effect in increasing risk for the heart inflammation condition.

Males under 40 were least likely to suffer myocarditis after COVID infection, with a incidence rate ratio of 2.02 (just over twice the baseline risk), followed by 2.57 for the AstraZeneca vaccine (two-dose protocol), 3.41 for the Pfizer jab (two-dose protocol), and a whopping 16.52 for the Moderna vaccine (two-dose protocol), representing a sixteen-and-a-half-times increase in the risk of myocarditis compared to baseline.

Risk of myocarditis accumulated with each shot, including for the third dose or booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine. Other vaccines have not been assessed for third-shot protocols.

In each case, the second dose dramatically increased the risk factor over the first dose, and Pfizer’s booster shot dramatically increase the risk factor over the second dose, more than doubling it.

While the incident rate ratio from one dose of the Pfizer vaccine was 1.66, that figure rose to 3.41 for the second dose, and rose again to 7.6 for the booster.

Older men studied did not show the same consistent rise in risk factor with dose between the first and second doses, but did show a dramatic increase in risk between the second dose and the booster shot, which more than tripled the incident rate ratio.

Women were only moderately more likely to experience myocarditis after the booster shot, though females under 40 were shown to have a dramatic increase in risk with each dose of the Moderna vaccine, though not the Pfizer vaccine, rising to 7.55 times baseline after the second dose, well above the risk level for COVID patients.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Oh look who was rubbing elbows with the dem leaders last night...since she is too ignorant to think for herself I have to assume they were telling her how to rule on the mandate cases. Amazingly she was at the hearing remotely because of "covid" but has no problem dining out in a crowded restaurant....

The people telling you to to fear covid have no fear of covid. There is a reason for that.

I don't know if this is real. It is showing up no where else and would probaably be in a lot headlines by now if it really happened. I searched for it and could not find anything. Would you please provide a link.

^^^^^^
Twas removed from Twatter.......

Seems Schmuck's wife, Iris, was misidentified as Sonia Sotomayor.

https://twitter.com/katiadoyl/.../1479867227860054023

^^^^
It was, Politico Playbook retracted the story. Sorry for posting.

Now for something fun

Perhaps the greatest parent/school board beatdown I have heard. Covid based communism won't be stopped by science, it will be stopped by parents standing up for their kids. Parents from all walks of life, left and right.



When I see the members of the board in the schools who are in control of our children and the way they think, I’m disgusted. This is exactly why my children are at home, homeschooled, staying away from people like you. You want to poison their minds and think there’s something they should fear. You guys are like the bogeyman. You’re creating hysteria and you’re creating a generation of children with social anxiety. You’re going to create an entire generation of pill-popping junkies.

And this is going to be your doing because they have no idea what other people’s faces and smiles look like. They’re going to grow up in a world of angry bitter people, pissed-off citizens, people who have no idea that this mouth plays a major role in non-verbal communications. I’ve taken psychology classes. I went through the indoctrination camps. I got my Bachelor’s degree from South State. I went to Sierra College, I made it through, and you know what? I learned that there are people who will stand up for the kids and there’s people like you people who pretend to stand up for kids because you want the paycheck and you want the cool name. You’re president, well I’m president too, bro. We’re both presidents of a group, congratulations!

But I stand up for the kids, that’s the difference. I stand up for the kids in the community. I put my life on the line for these kids. I stand up for everybody’s kids in all the communities. I do it on a 9 to 5 basis, Monday through Sunday 12 to 12. These women right here, it’s sad you beta males let these women lead by example. Let me tell you right now you sad little betas, you are seen as weak minuscule men. And I tell my [unintelligible] men like you, those aren’t men. You will be weak, minuscule men the rest of your lives, and I’m not going to let you influence the boys in this community to be little cucks. You understand? This is a city of men, not betas, not gender-identified people. There are men and there are women and there are betas and there are alphas and this omicron crap is a joke.

Take the mask off, take a deep breath, go do some yoga … this is psychological damage. And I know you’re looking at me bro cause you know what I’m saying is truth. You know it, and you’re going to go home and sleep on this and it’s going to bother you. And I’ll be back in two weeks, bro. I’ll be back every two weeks cause I own my own business, I homeschool my kids, and I can do that because no one else signs my checks. We sign their checks and you best bet that I’m going to run a boatload of people against you guys. There ain’t gonna be no easy peasy election next time. … you guys are toast. I don’t care what you did in your community because this is enough. You can go do all the good you want but when you poison my kids’ mind, it’s done. You’ve crossed the line. So I’m letting you know, we’re pissed and it’s enough.


https://pjmedia.com/news-and-p...edic-timing-n1547839

I would consider that a fine ass chewing.

Now that is a beat-down

I'd say he got his money's worth right there!! God BLESS that MAN!!!!

This is the approach all of us should be taking. No more playing nice, no more negotiating, no more 'asking' for their help and cooperation. It's time to go scorched earth on all this human garbage.

I like it. Not sure where this really is. Small transcription error I think : I got my Bachelor’s degree from South State should read Sac(ramento) State. Sierra College in Roseville. Relatively conservative county with 2A friendly sheriff.

Covid hit our house. I want to share the story, share what we have learned from this first hand experience. It is rather lengthy and might go into a lot of detail but here it is.

Three people live in our house, Me, my wife and my mother in law who is in her 80's. We have all made the decision not get an MRNA vaccine and I will not get into the why's in this post.

On December the 20th my wife started getting mild cold allergy symptoms and decided to get tested because of the upcoming family gathering on Christmas Eve. PCR test done and results negative. Went to the gathering and all was good. Mother in law started getting mild sinus issues and fatigue the day after Christmas and lost her appetite. After a couple of days we scheduled her for a covid test to rule it out before deciding whether she needed to see a doctor. A few days later her PCR test came back positive. By this time she had started to feel better.

I started getting sick the day she went for a test and it was mainly cold symptoms. By the time her test came back my symptoms had progressed to headache,fever,congestion,extreme chills,extreme fatigue,and loss of appetite. So when her test came back positive I was sure I was also and scheduled a PCR test,fouund one available two days out. I got sicker than my wife or mother in law and I have still not fully recovered. Three days after I went for the test I got the result and it was negative. Ok I thought; I went in before the virus had developed enough to be detected so I scheduled a rapid test a few days out while there were still tests available. Got the result back today. Negative.

Several people who went to the gathering on December the 24th have become symptomatic and tested positive.

So what can I make from all of this? Not really much of anything. So far it looks like we are going to survive, with my symptoms being the worse which was uncomfortable but not horrible. My personal opinion is that their tests may not be much better than their vaccines. I know some people have terrible sickness and death from covid and I am not attempting to make light of that. This whole thing from the beginning has been crazy.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wcb6092,

^^^ I consider that good news!!
You all got it (as will everyone else) and not serious.

Biden administration guidance prioritizes race in administering COVID drugs

quote:

.... Some states, including New York and Utah, have made it clear they will prioritize certain racial minorities over other high-risk patients when it comes to the distribution of particular COVID treatments....

One such "risk factor" is being a race or ethnicity that is not White due to "longstanding systemic health and social inequities."

"Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19," the memo reads.

Here's a crazy idea, instead of basing care on who may have a higher risk to people who are having more complications? Or if there are multiple people with the same 'score' but there are fewer doses do a lottery.

I don't want anyone being denied care due to race, don't care what race they are. It amazes me that there are that support it. What if the wind changes and you're next group on the do not provide care list?